Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34830642›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Expert Consensus on the Contraindications and Cautions of Foam Rolling-An International Delphi Study.

Katja Martina Bartsch, Christian Baumgart, Jürgen Freiwald, Jan Wilke, Gunda Slomka, Sascha Turnhöfer, Christoph Egner, Matthias W Hoppe, Werner Klingler, Robert Schleip

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Katja Martina BartschDepartment of Sport Science and Sport (DSS), FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Christian BaumgartDepartment of Movement and Training Science, University of Wuppertal, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6258-3537
Jürgen FreiwaldDepartment of Movement and Training Science, University of Wuppertal, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3694-6848
Jan WilkeInstitute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60487 Frankfurt/Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9147-2369
Gunda SlomkaStiftungsuniversität Hildesheim, 31141 Hildesheim, Germany.
Sascha TurnhöferDiploma Hochschule, 37242 Bad Sooden-Allendorf, Germany.
Christoph EgnerDiploma Hochschule, 37242 Bad Sooden-Allendorf, Germany.
Matthias W HoppeMovement and Training Science, Leipzig University, 04109 Leipzig, Germany.
Werner KlinglerSRH Hospital, 72488 Sigmaringen, Germany.
Robert SchleipExperimental Anaesthesiology, Ulm University, 89069 Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1225-0475
Diploma Hochschule · DEUniversität Ulm · DEUniversity of Wuppertal · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DELeipzig University · DEUniversity of Hildesheim · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFoam rolling is a type of self-massage using tools such as foam or roller sticks. However, to date, there is no consensus on contraindications and cautions of foam rolling. A methodological approach to narrow that research gap is to obtain reliable opinions of expert groups. The aim of the study was to develop experts' consensus on contraindications and cautions of foam rolling by means of a Delphi process.

methodsAn international three-round Delphi study was conducted. Academic experts, defined as having (co-) authored at least one PubMed-listed paper on foam rolling, were invited to participate. Rounds 1 and 2 involved generation and rating of a list of possible contraindications and cautions of foam rolling. In round 3, participants indicated their agreement on contraindications and cautions for a final set of conditions. Consensus was evaluated using a priori defined criteria. Consensus on contraindications and cautions was considered as reached if more than 70% of participating experts labeled the respective item as contraindication and contraindication or caution, respectively, in round 3.

resultsIn the final Delphi process round, responses were received from 37 participants. Panel participants were predominantly sports scientists ( DISCUSSION: The mechanical forces applied through foam rolling can be considered as potential threats leading to adverse events in the context of the identified contraindications and cautions. Further evaluations by medical professionals as well as the collection of clinical data are needed to assess the risks of foam rolling and to generate guidance for different applications and professional backgrounds.

Indexed as

fasciamassagemyofascialself-myofascial release

Identifiers

PMID34830642
PMCPMC8622134
OpenAlexW3217585593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.